Grullon v. The Administration for Children's Services

Background

Rolando Grullon, appearing without a lawyer, sued the New York City Administration for Children’s Services (ACS), the City of New York, and eight ACS employees under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. He sought damages for the filing of a child-neglect proceeding against him.

ACS filed the neglect petition in New York Family Court on April 14, 2015. The petition identified concerns including Grullon’s depression and bipolar disorder, his reported failure to take prescribed medication, allegations by the child’s mother that he had abused and threatened her, and police reports concerning injuries to the mother. The Family Court issued a temporary protection order that limited Grullon’s contact with his daughter and extended it several times. The order remained in effect for more than one year.

On May 6, 2016, the Family Court dismissed the neglect petition with prejudice, finding that its allegations were not established. On June 1, 2016, the court released the child to Grullon’s custody with supervision and conditions including mental-health services, ACS home visits, cooperation with ACS supervision, and continued contact with ACS.

Claims and analysis

The Second Amended Complaint alleged that ACS violated Grullon’s procedural and substantive due-process rights, caused a stigma-plus injury through his alleged inclusion on the State Central Registry for Child Neglect, violated the Fourth Amendment, maliciously prosecuted him, discriminated against him because of his mental-health conditions, and caused liability for the City, ACS, and individual supervisors and employees.

For procedural due process, the court held that Grullon received notice and an opportunity to be heard before his parenting rights were restricted. The Family Court issued and extended the protection order after findings of good cause, and the record indicated that notice of the ACS petition was provided. The court also noted that Grullon later appeared with counsel at several Family Court proceedings. His decision not to attend the first hearings did not eliminate the opportunity to be heard.

For substantive due process, the court recognized that the parent-child relationship is constitutionally protected, but concluded that Grullon did not allege conduct sufficiently outrageous to violate that protection. The court found that ACS did not rely only on pre-birth conduct or the mother’s statements. The petition also referred to post-birth conduct, Grullon’s reported failure to take prescribed medication, information from the Barrier Free Living Program, and Domestic Incident Reports. Grullon did not plausibly allege that ACS ignored overwhelming evidence clearing him, knowingly relied on false information, or fabricated evidence.

The court also concluded that the complaint did not state a stigma-plus claim because Grullon did not allege a tangible burden beyond reputational harm, such as a lost employment or foster-care opportunity, or facts showing that the registry continued to identify him as having an indicated report.

The possible Fourth Amendment claim failed because a parent cannot assert a child’s Fourth Amendment rights on the parent’s own behalf, and a person proceeding without a lawyer cannot represent a minor child. The court further concluded that, even assuming Grullon could assert the claim for his daughter, the complaint did not plausibly allege false statements in the neglect petition that ACS knowingly or recklessly presented to the Family Court.

The court assumed, without deciding, that a child-neglect proceeding could support a malicious-prosecution claim. It nevertheless found that Grullon pleaded no specific facts showing that ACS lacked probable cause or acted with malice. The petition and the Family Court’s good-cause finding supported probable cause, and the later dismissal of the petition did not by itself establish malicious prosecution.

The court also assumed for purposes of the motion that Grullon had a disability and that the ACS investigation and removal process could qualify as a public-entity activity under the ADA. It held, however, that the complaint did not plausibly allege that ACS filed the neglect petition because of Grullon’s disability. The allegations and petition showed that ACS considered reported conduct, alleged abuse, threats, medication noncompliance, and other information in addition to his diagnoses. The court therefore dismissed the ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims.

The court separately explained that ACS, as a City agency, could not be sued independently from New York City. The complaint also did not identify a City policy, custom, or practice that caused a federal-rights violation, as required for municipal liability under § 1983. The allegations against ACS supervisors Gladys Carrion and David Hansell were likewise insufficient because they asserted only that the supervisors failed to supervise other ACS employees, without facts showing their personal involvement.

Disposition

Judge Lewis J. Liman granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim. Although Grullon had already received several opportunities to amend, the court allowed him until May 14, 2021, to file a third amended complaint. The court directed the Clerk to close the case, without prejudice to reopening if Grullon filed that amended complaint by the deadline, and terminated the pending motions.